George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition supports the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—General Law Reform) Bill 2008. This bill is part of a suite of legislation, together with, in particular, the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—Superannuation) Bill 2008, which has been considered by the parliament and by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, whose purpose in aggregate is to eliminate discrimination against Australians in domestic relationships on the basis of their sexuality.

The legislation has been a long time coming. I will not repeat now what I had to say in this chamber on 14 October 2008 in debate on the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—Superannuation) Bill 2008, when I set out at length the history of movements on both sides of politics for reform in this area, but may I refer to that speech as the principal exposition of the opposition’s position in relation to this matter. Might I also refer to the remarks made in the House of Representatives on the second reading of that bill on 4 June by the then Leader of the Opposition, Dr Brendan Nelson, and on the same day by the current Leader of the Opposition, Mr Malcolm Turnbull, in which they indicated their wholehearted support for that bill, to which this bill is a cognate piece of legislation. As Mr Turnbull said on 4 June in that debate:

Discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation is as abhorrent as discriminating against them on the basis of their religion or their race.

That is a view that is shared by the members of the opposition.

This is a historic day because, when this legislation passes through the chamber and the related bill passes through the chamber, Australia will have brought to fulfilment a long history of legislative and policy measures to eliminate discrimination against people on unfair grounds and to instate and affirm the principle that people should be judged by their merits and by their merits alone.

As recently as the first half of the 20th century it was commonplace in this country to discriminate against people according to their religion. I am from a Catholic family and I remember my mother, who grew up during the Depression years, telling me that during the Depression years it was very common to see job advertisements in Brisbane with the subscription at the foot of the advertisement ‘No Catholics need apply,’ or, in some cases, ‘No Protestants need apply.’ Those social attitudes, discriminating against people on the basis of their religion, seem bizarre and antique to us today; yet, within the memory of people still living, that was commonplace in this country. As a result of measures taken from both sides of politics, that odious and—to use Mr Turnbull’s word—abhorrent form of discrimination is no longer part of our society.

More recently still, it was commonplace to hear of people being discriminated against on the basis of their race—not only Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians but also migrants to Australia from non-Anglo-Celtic cultures. As a result of a series of measures initiated by the Holt government, which began the abolition of the White Australia policy and which was responsible for initiating the great 1967 referendum, and measures of the Whitlam government—in particular, the Racial Discrimination Act—and other measures taken by both sides of politics in the years since, it is accepted as abhorrent to discriminate against people on the basis of their race. And so it should be. In more recent years, during the time of the Fraser government, the subsequent Labor government and the Howard government, there have been further advances in Australian antidiscrimination laws and advances in human rights—in relation to gender, with the Sex Discrimination Act; in relation to disability, with the Disability Discrimination Act; and in relation to age.

The last area requiring attention to assert the principle that every Australian is entitled to be treated and judged on their merits and not on any other basis has been in the area of sexuality. In the recent round of Senate estimates hearings, when Human Rights Australia—formerly the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission—gave evidence to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, the head of Human Rights Australia, Mr Innes, observed that sexuality discrimination was, as it were, the final frontier or the final hurdle in instating a comprehensive suite of antidiscrimination laws in Australia. So, from a human rights point of view, this is a very important measure. It is, from my point of view as a Liberal—and therefore a believer in the autonomy, rights and freedom of the individual—a very important development. That is why the opposition welcomes it—not merely because it is a good public policy measure but because it springs from the depths of our liberal philosophy.

The legislation, in its original form, has been improved as a result of the hearings of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. There were a number of misgivings that were entertained by senators from all sides, I think it is fair to say, in relation to some of the drafting of the measure in its original form. In particular, there are two significant issues where the government has conceded to objections raised by the opposition and which were flagged in the report of the committee in October 2008—and I refer, in particular, to the additional comments by Liberal senators from page 41 and following.

First of all, the legislation in its original iteration homogenised marital and non-marital relationships so as to eliminate, for all practical purposes, the distinction between marriages and relationships which were not marriages. We in the opposition believe—and I have said this many times in this chamber—that the unique, special and privileged status of marriage should be respected. And I am glad that the government has acknowledged that point by reinstating statutory language in government amendments, which will be dealt with in the committee stage, which make separate provision for marital relationships and non-marital relationships. Let me make the point that has been made on both sides of the debate on this measure, and that is that there is no suggestion from either the government or the opposition that the traditional nature of marriage as being a relationship between a man and a woman will be in any way affected by this bill or by any associated legislation.

The second area in which the government, in amendments that will be moved in the committee stage, has conceded to points that have been made by opposition senators in the Senate committee process and which form part of the additional comments in the report, is in relation to the treatment of children in such relationships. The opposition is now satisfied with the manner in which the definition of children in such relationships is being dealt with by the government, so that we no longer have this very clinical description of a child as a ‘product of a relationship’. Instead we have definitions of children and their entitlements within these relationships that we think are socially appropriate.

As I have mentioned the work of the Senate committee, may I pay a particular tribute to the work of the coalition senators who participated in those hearings over the winter recess and subsequently. Senator Russell Trood, Senator Guy Barnett and Senator Mary Jo Fisher are the principal opposition members of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Their recommendations, which are wise recommendations and which, as I have said, have largely been accepted by the government, have improved this legislation immeasurably. I know that all three of those senators went about their task and their work in that committee in a most conscientious and industrious fashion.

Finally, if the Senate will indulge me, I want to give due credit to those within the coalition who hold more conservative views on this matter than my own but who nevertheless, in a spirit of cooperation, sought to arrive at a common position so that the opposition is able to be united in support of this measure. There is no point in introducing law reform designed to heal wounds and to bind society together if you do it in a divisive way—and I am not accusing the government of doing so in relation to this particular measure. That means that you have to bring people with you. It means that people who want to pioneer liberal reform need to be sensitive to and respectful of the views of more conservative people than themselves.

There are some participants in this discussion, within the coalition parties in particular, who had severe concerns about some aspects of the bills in their original form but who nevertheless, in the best parliamentary fashion, worked with colleagues to achieve a common position. I want to single three people out. I want to again mention Senator Guy Barnett, whose approach to this matter has been principled, conscientious and honourable. There are two members of the House of Representatives in particular whom I would like to mention: the member for Menzies, the Hon. Kevin Andrews, and the member for Cook, Mr Scott Morrison. They are both from a more socially conservative perspective than others in the coalition, but they nevertheless sought to work with us to arrive at a position that we would all feel reasonably comfortable with. That has been achieved. If government senators will forgive me for saying so, it has been a great achievement for the Liberal and National parties to have achieved consensus and unity on this issue in which the more liberal and the more conservative elements of those parties have been able to accommodate one another’s agendas, concerns, aspirations and scepticism and nevertheless reach a position where the opposition will unitedly be able to support these measures in their amended form. The cause of law reform and the cause of individual rights in Australia will be very materially advanced today.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the final piece of legislation, the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—General Law Reform) Bill 2008, in the government’s reforms that aim to remove same-sex discrimination from federal law. This is indeed a very significant day. The fact that we will finally see an end to the endless discriminatory practices of the past is something that the Australian Greens certainly welcome, but we believe that it is more than overdue. There has been discussion and public debate about the removal of same-sex discrimination in Commonwealth legislation for decades. While the Australian Greens commend the government on following through with their election promise to remove discrimination against same-sex couples from more than 100 pieces of legislation, we must not forget the tireless efforts of all of the individuals and key community groups who have campaigned for decades with little recognition until now.

To think that in 2008, we are only now beginning to see steps to remove discrimination against same-sex couples and their families is an indictment of former Liberal and Labor governments’ failure to act on what is a fundamental human right. The Australian Greens congratulate the Attorney-General on this historic and comprehensive undertaking of human rights reform. While we believe that there are key areas that have not been addressed within this legislation, in no way do we wish our recommendations to undervalue the significance of the legislation that is before us today. The Greens have a strong and proud history of supporting same-sex rights in Australia. Diversity of sexuality and gender identity is part of our community, and our laws should reflect this. The Greens have a strong track record of defending the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people, and we believe all members of our community are entitled to equal treatment before the law and by the community.

The first stage of the Rudd government’s election promise to remove discrimination against same-sex couples from more than 100 pieces of legislation follows the 2007 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report which highlighted that at least 20,000 same-sex couples in Australia experience systematic discrimination daily. The same-sex general law reform bill seeks to amend some 68 Commonwealth laws, which involve 19 Commonwealth departments. This bill amends the definitions of ‘de facto’, ‘parent’, ‘child’ and ‘relationship’ to ensure that same-sex couples are finally treated equally before the law. The explanatory memorandum circulated by the Attorney-General states that the amendments contained within this legislation are required to eliminate discrimination against same-sex couples and their children and to ensure:

… de facto partners, children of same-sex couples, and persons whose relationship is traced through them will be considered to be members of a person’s family, and relatives for the purposes of relevant Commonwealth legislation.

As I said, this is indeed a significant day. The Australian Greens recognise that freedom of sexual orientation and gender identity are fundamental human rights. Acceptance and celebration of diversity, including sexual orientation and gender diversity, is essential for genuine social justice and equality.

I would like to commend the chair and the committee secretariat on the comprehensive nature of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs report. The Greens believe that the inquiry into the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—General Law Reform) Bill, as well as the suite of legislation in relation to removing discrimination against same-sex couples, has provided the committee with the opportunity to recommend to the government ways to strengthen and tighten legislation to ensure same-sex couples are not discriminated against in any way.

In June 2007, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission released the final report from their nationwide inquiry into discrimination against people in same-sex relationships, entitled Same-sex: same entitlements. Today we are here to ensure that the recommendations are implemented in federal law. It provided two simple recommendations that specifically called on the federal government to amend discriminatory laws identified in the inquiry to ensure that same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples enjoy the same financial and work related entitlements and to ensure that the interests of children in same-sex and opposite-sex families are equally protected in the area of financial and work related entitlements.

As I mentioned in my remarks earlier, the Australian Greens strongly support the bill before the Senate today, particularly in removing discrimination against same-sex couples on basic issues such as employment, workers compensation, tax, social security, veterans entitlements, health care, superannuation, aged care and migration. Despite the Greens’ support for this bill, I am concerned that not all the recommendations outlined within the HREOC Same-Sex: Same Entitlements inquiry have been implemented. We are particularly concerned about whether there will be possible future discrimination by not reforming acts which, although superseded by new acts, have nonetheless not been entirely repealed. I would like to question the minister when the legislation is considered in the Committee of the Whole as to how we should respond to this possible future discrimination.

While we support the bill without qualification, I will briefly outline the recommendations that the Greens believe are needed to finetune the objects of the legislation before us today. Legal reforms are only beneficial to the intended recipients if they are appropriately administered and implemented. While the Greens support the recommendation put forward by the legal and constitutional affairs committee report on this bill that all government departments and agencies responsible for providing Commonwealth benefits implement user-friendly initiatives and strategies to educate both clients and staff, we believe this needs to go much further and be much more effective. The New South Wales Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby pointed out in their submission the importance of a public education campaign to outline the new rights and responsibilities arising for same-sex couples which will come from these reforms. I will quote from their submission:

In our consultation with over 1,300 lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in NSW, confusion and uncertainty about legal rights were highlighted as a significant impediment to taking advantage of equal rights - even those which were granted to same-sex couples in NSW as far back as 1999.

We would like to see the government fund a cross-departmental educational campaign for individuals, service providers and businesses, collating the relevant changes to legislation in one centralised location—an equal rights hub, let us say. We would also like to see the government establish a hotline for 12 months specifically for professionals to ensure discrimination does not continue due to a lack of understanding of the changes. As I said before, legal reform will only mean something to the people it is intended for if these reforms are properly administered and implemented. The reforms before us today would ensure that federal and state laws moved towards a consistent and comprehensive recognition of same-sex partners equal to that of opposite-sex de facto partners. So it is an opportune time to educate lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Australians about their new, and their existing, rights under the law.

The Greens also have concerns about the negative financial impact the changes will have on individuals who are receiving the disability support pension, sole parenting payments or concession card benefits. While we recognise that the majority of the proposed reforms will benefit same-sex couples, we are concerned that some aspects, particularly those related to social security, could have unintentional negative consequences for some same-sex couples. To combat these unintended consequences, we would like to see government implement a transitional period of at least 12 months to ensure individuals currently on social security payments have sufficient time to readjust their finances.

The Australian Greens strongly support the recommendation of the Australian Coalition for Equality for the introduction of an umbrella term in the Acts Interpretation Act. This term would be ‘couple relationship’ and would include marital relationships, de facto relationships and registered relationships. In applying an umbrella term to capture all forms of relationships, the separate definitions would ensure that the relationships were identified as being different from one another, especially in keeping the distinct recognition of marriage separate, while allowing recognition of same-sex couples who chose to formalise their relationship through entering into a registered relationship. It simply makes sense to recognise the three different levels of relationships, even though these people will all be able to access the same rights under the law.

The Greens would also like to see a clause that recognises registered relationships that have been registered in a foreign country where the relationship was, at the time it was registered, recognised as valid under local law. We do this for marriage relationships; let us also do it for registered foreign relationships.

The Australian Greens have some concerns about the approach taken when amending the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act. While the Greens are supportive of the amendments removing discrimination against same-sex couples on the basis of family responsibilities, we are concerned that the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act relating to discrimination on the basis of marital status have not been amended. It seems silly to me that we would remove all discrimination and not amend the Sex Discrimination Act. The Greens believe that that the Sex Discrimination Act should be amended to provide equal protection to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples from discrimination on the basis of being in a de facto relationship and to also include another subsection identifying registered relationships. We need to ensure that our desire for and moves toward equality are consistent across federal law.

Those against same-sex unions argue that it would destroy the sanctity of the institution of marriage. In countries which have recognised same-sex unions for a reasonable period of time, heterosexual marriage still exists and the institution has not fallen into disarray. Many Western countries, such as Canada, the United Kingdom and our neighbour New Zealand, have enacted laws to provide for same-sex civil unions. Here in Australia we should be moving towards allowing same-sex couples the same rights to marry and register their relationships. Yet, while the Greens commend the government for staying true to its election promise to remove same-sex discrimination from Commonwealth law, we continue to see people of the same sex who are engaged in a loving and committed relationship, voluntarily entered into for life, denied the basic right afforded to married heterosexual couples. It is time for this parliament to have a proper debate about allowing same-sex couples to marry. The Australian Greens believe that discrimination such as that espoused by the Marriage Amendment Act 2004 must be overturned, because freedom of sexuality and gender identity are fundamental human rights and acceptance and celebration of diversity are essential for genuine social justice and equality. Today, the Greens are calling on all other parties in this chamber to allow for senators to have a conscience vote on the amendment I will move in the committee stage to amend the Marriage Act. If this is a moral issue, let people vote on their own conscience.

The Greens support the removal of discrimination in all areas of federal law. We do not want to see this bill delayed any further. While we will move some amendments we think will strengthen the intent and object of the bill, we recognise and support the public desire to have same-sex discrimination removed from law—and we need to see this discrimination removed swiftly. Today is a very important day. It should no longer be acceptable to allow legislation to continue to discriminate against a couple because of their sexuality. I commend the bill to the Senate and look forward to debating the amendments.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Rudd government, and indeed this parliament, are undertaking what I think is widespread and historic legislative reform to remove discrimination against same-sex de facto couples, people from different gender identity backgrounds and their children. The Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—General Law Reform) Bill 2008 is one part of this reform. This bill will make sure that same-sex couples and their children are treated the same as heterosexual couples and their children in the same situations across a wide range of laws. These include tax, social security, health, aged care, veterans entitlements, workers compensation, immigration and other areas of Commonwealth law.

I would like to note the historic work of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, HREOC—which is now the Australian Human Rights Commission—when they conducted a detailed inquiry into discrimination under the Commonwealth laws. I am please that the Rudd government complemented this important work by conducting a whole-of-government audit of federal legislation. Indeed, this audit confirmed HREOC’s reports and also identified additional areas in which same-sex couples and people with different gender identity backgrounds and their children experience discrimination, including in non-financial areas such as administrative and even evidence laws. It found a wide range of areas in which people are discriminated against. The amendments in this bill are necessary to redress this discrimination.

The reality of equality is that some in our community will now be assessed as a couple rather than as singles for the purposes of social security and family assistance, and some of these people may indeed experience a reduction in payments. No-one knows this better than the many lesbian and gay activists who have worked so very hard for legislation of this sort. They understand the true price of equality, but they welcome it nevertheless for the many tangible benefits that it will bring in a legal sense—but, most importantly, for its symbolic and social significance, although I have to agree with Senator Hanson-Young that it is also incumbent on the government to manage the impact of the reforms on same-sex couples who may have benefits reduced under the changes, especially those who are already marginalised within our society and experience high levels of disadvantage. Many of these people have lived with discrimination within our laws for all of their lives and they have never experienced the financial benefits of being recognised as couples.

I would very much like to support the recommendation of the legal and constitutional affairs committee in this regard—namely, that the government needs to give consideration to the administrative and regulatory mechanisms that may be used to manage the impact of these reforms on such disadvantaged couples.

The bill will also end discrimination in other ways. For example, it will end the existing marital status discrimination in Commonwealth legislation that operates to the detriment of de facto couples in general.

It is not my intention today to discuss the detailed nature of the amendments to all of the individual pieces of legislation that are affected by the bill before us. And it is not my intention to enter into technical or semantic arguments in relation to the definitions of ‘couple’ and ‘child-parent relationship’. Suffice to say that I agree very much with the general approach taken to these definitional questions by the majority report of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I would very much like to commend the committee for the important work that it has done in examining these issues and also, I think, in bringing about consensus across the parliament to bring support for these important reforms.

I would like to highlight one of the committee’s recommendations—in relation to the definition of ‘child-parent relationships’. I also note that the government has already circulated amendments that give effect to that recommendation.

Today, I am going to focus my attention on what these reforms mean in practice for real people—for real people in real relationships with real children, living their own lives and currently facing all of the many and varied complex issues and challenges faced by straight couples and their children, but with the added burden of discrimination based on their sexuality; for real parents whose children are lesbian or gay; for real grandparents whose children are lesbian or gay and have children of their own; for real brothers and sisters whose children are cousins to the children of lesbian and gay parents. A great many of these people have had the courage to share their stories in order to further the cause of equality. Over the past few decades they have shared their stories and publicly outed themselves to advance same-sex law reform in each of the Australian states and territories. I commend them for their courage. Most recently they have shared their stories in the context of the HREOC National Inquiry into Discrimination against People in Same-Sex Relationships: Financial and Work-Related Entitlements and Benefits. They have shared their stories in submissions to the inquiry and also in the media. They have stood up in public hearings and forums and given evidence as to how discrimination against same-sex couples has directly affected them and their families.

With the permission of those involved, some of these stories were published by HREOC in an appendix to their report. I think that it is these stories that most clearly illustrate more than anything else the real reasons why the bill before us is so important. They demonstrate vividly how the various forms of discrimination faced by same-sex couples interact with each other. Sometimes they compound the negative effects of each individual instance of discrimination in the lives of real people. Finally, these stories highlight how the pernicious effects of discrimination against same-sex couples spread out beyond the lives of the individual gay and lesbian people involved; how that discrimination has affected their children, their parents, their loved ones and those that deal with same-sex couple families in a professional capacity—teachers, health workers, Centrelink workers, accountants, employers and so on; and how each individual instance of discrimination flows through into the broader community where it creates unnecessary burdens and administrative complexities, restricting access to essential services, encouraging intolerance, undermining relationships and fostering homophobia. To read these stories is to know that this discrimination must end and we must end it now. On that note, today is a very historic occasion.

It is for this reason, and as a testament to all those ordinary Australians who have had the courage to reveal the details of their personal lives in order to further the cause of equality, that I am going to share just one of those stories with the Senate today. I would like to acknowledge Bryce Peterson, who shared his perspective as a parent of a lesbian daughter with the Launceston forum held by HREOC on 25 September, 2006. Bryce said:

I am here as a father of four. My eldest daughter, Sacha, lives in Melbourne with her partner Anna and they have a daughter, Mabel, who is 11 months old.

I intend this submission to be based on what I consider to be the differences between my daughter, Sacha, and her sister Lauren, who also has a male partner and they have 2 children, a son, 4, and a daughter, 19 months.

Firstly, to have a baby, my daughter Sacha, the biological mother, after much research of the options available, opted for artificial insemination. This procedure is not available to gay couples or single women that are not in a committed relationship in Victoria, unless they have a problem with fertility, so they had to go interstate. This procedure is an expensive and mentally draining exercise. Part of the procedure is to have counselling of at least two sessions to prove you are ready and suitable to have children.

How many parents, male or female, would even consider this as an option before starting a family, and what would be their reaction to such a suggestion?

Sacha was treated as a single mother throughout the pregnancy, but was totally supported by Anna the entire time. Many of the costs involved are not claimable, either due to the nature of the procedure or threshold limits.

My other daughter, Lauren, and her partner have had their two children. The fact that he is male means no explanations are required and therefore their relationship is proof enough to satisfy the system. Sacha has to constantly explain the situation, which shouldn’t be an issue.

After the birth of Mabel, Sacha and Anna, to ensure the future welfare and care of their daughter, had papers drawn up to cover a, b or c etc. This cost $1500.

Another major purpose of these papers is to show Anna is just as much a parent as Sacha but that is still not acceptable to the system. Adoption by Anna is not possible.

While these papers go a long way towards helping solve some of the problems that may or may not occur, if they are put to the test, how credible are they? If separation occurs, my daughter could be left totally supporting herself and Mabel, and if something happens to Sacha where does that leave Anna as a parent, let alone financially. Ironically even fathers who don’t pay maintenance are still recognised as parents.

One of the plus sides of the situation is that Sacha is entitled to all social security benefits as a single mother, regardless of her living circumstances. Her partner could be a millionaire but in the system this is not considered. I guess while this can be seen as a plus, I know they would swap these benefits if it meant they were both recognised and treated as parents with the same rights as male/female parents.

Anna has supported their family financially and … took annual leave after the birth.

As far as Medicare is concerned they are treated as a family for Sacha and Mabel, and a single for Anna. Therefore the combination of costs if they reach the Medicare threshold is not possible.

This also applies to tax rebates; Anna is not entitled to claim either of them as dependants, unlike my other daughter’s partner. If you choose to stay at home once your paid maternity leave has run out, surely as a couple you should be entitled to the same rebates.

Recently while visiting my daughter, Anna came home form work in pain and distressed with a bad ear infection. Before departing to go to the emergency room, I couldn’t but notice sadly that Sacha gathered together all papers that states their relationship. Yet when we got there, that was one of the first questions asked, their relationship status, to be able to tick the right category, to which my daughter replied they are a couple and it was up to them to which category they thought was applicable.

My other daughter only has to be there with her partner, no further questions are needed, and the Medicare card says it all.

Due to their relationship these papers are taken everywhere there is a remote possibility they may be needed. As we all know not all families totally support their gay children, so couples need to be able to make decisions for each other if required without fear of a legal or family ramification.

As parents we want the best for our children and admire them for their academic/career and personal triumphs in life and don’t want to see them disadvantaged because of their sexuality.

While Sacha and Anna do come across sympathetic people in the system and with a strong network in the gay community, this all certainly helps; this doesn’t compensate the injustices brought about by the system.

As a parent and a grandparent when talking to family, friends and colleagues about these things, many of them are unaware … but agree that the inconsistencies should be righted and are pleased they don’t have to face the same problems.

What a pity people don’t see what my grandson (Lauren’s son) sees, while he may not be old enough to be able to understand the whole situation, he just sees a cousin with two mums.

Why should Mabel grow up with any less right either legal or financial than her cousins?

That, in a nutshell, is the question before us today. I am very pleased with the substantive legal equality for couples irrespective of the gender, identity or sexuality of couples that this bill implements. However, personally, I hope that one day there is a majority in this parliament to remove discrimination against all couples in relation to marriage. That is something I acknowledged in my first speech to this place. Although I really do believe it is important to note just how far we have come in achieving support across the parliament for these historic reforms. All those things that affect the family that I just spoke about will be fixed by this historic law reform. Of this I am extremely proud.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure to speak on the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—General Law Reform) Bill 2008. I have already made contributions on the associated piece of legislation relating to superannuation, in which I canvassed a number of my general views about this issue and particularly about the pride I have as a Liberal in seeing these reforms being undertaken. It is a pleasure to again, as this final historic piece of legislation passes, reflect on the broadly cross-party support that is coming through this chamber and on the very significant change that we are taking for Australians today.

Having just had the pleasure of hearing Senator Pratt’s contribution, an emotional contribution at that, it demonstrates just how significant and important this change is for many people around Australia. Sometimes we as legislators can underestimate the human impact of the actions that we take in this place—the human impact of the laws that exist, the decisions that are made and the real way in which they are felt by mums and dads, young people, old people, families and communities throughout Australia.

I know that every time I step out into the community and meet with large groups of people I find that there are usually one or two people in the room who will touch you with a particular issue that is integral to their livelihood and the life that they are leading and they wish there was something that could be done about it. For this issue there are many thousands of Australians for which this is integral. It is wonderful to see that, today, something is being done to address their concerns.

As Senator Pratt put it: why should anybody live under a weight of discrimination? Why should an individual, a couple or particularly children live under the weight of any form of discrimination? All people should face equal treatment, particularly in the eyes of the law and in the legislation that emanates from this parliament.

In terms of discrimination there are many and enough challenges at a societal level that can occur throughout one’s life. I said in my maiden speech to this place that I am not silly enough to inherently believe at surface value that all people are born equal in terms of opportunities that are there for them. Sadly, that is not the case. We wish it were, but it is not. It is up to the state, families and society to support that ability of providing equality and that aspiration of equality of opportunity to so many people in our society. I am very pleased that the steps the parliament is taking through same-sex law reform will provide greater elements of equality and opportunity for people.

I put on the record that I wish these reforms had been undertaken some time ago. It would have been preferable. However, there have been—and I noted this in my previous contributions—many Liberal champions of these reforms. Senator Brandis has been amongst them and our leader of today, Malcolm Turnbull, has certainly been a strong advocate for change in this area. It is extremely pleasing to see the strong level of support from the Liberal Party to work cooperatively with the government and the crossbenches in obtaining these reforms through the committee processes and the analysis of the detail. There has been cooperation from those who find this reform more difficult than others but they have been willing to work constructively on the detail of the legislation to ensure that we end up with fair and equitable change for all Australians.

A significant step forward was taken in May last year, when the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission released its report Same-sex: same entitlements. It was a landmark report that is now being followed appropriately by landmark legislation. The report highlighted the vast range of Commonwealth legislation where discrimination continued to exist against same-sex couples in a vast array of areas, and indeed flowed through to their children as well. It relates to both rights and responsibilities. It relates to financial issues, as well as treatment more generally in the eyes of the law. All of those issues, however, are very important for those who are in such same-sex relationships—their families, their loved ones, their friends—whether it relates to the right of people to take carers leave to look after a loved one, the way that they are treated in relation to Medicare payments and the support that can exist for a couple as opposed to an individual. Just as some of these entitlements will change for the benefit of same-sex couples, some of the responsibilities in terms of their social security arrangements et cetera will also change. That is as it should be. Equality is not a one-way street of benefits; it is a two-way street of rights and responsibilities. Those responsibilities have been, I believe, warmly embraced by many in same-sex communities who want to ensure that their communities represent the same type of good standing and vision for Australia that so many others do.

Today in supporting this legislation, I particularly wish to focus on children and families. They are two things that have been spoken about at great length over many years and decades in debates on these issues. Senator Pratt highlighted, quite emotionally, the issue of children of same-sex relationships—children who live with parents, or step-parents, in a same-sex relationship and the reality that they face of not always being treated in an equitable manner.

We must accept that some children in those relationships will face difficult times, that prejudice still exists in society. It is not for the state to extend that prejudice further. It is important that, where possible, the state minimises those prejudices and actually delivers for those children the type of safe and secure environment that every child deserves to grow up in, whether their parents are in a heterosexual relationship or a same-sex relationship. We need to honestly and genuinely reflect the type of equality that those children deserve across all such families. That is not to take anything away from the importance of marriage as a fundamental institution in our society or from the importance of all parents being involved in the upbringing of a child. We on this side of the chamber certainly hold those as core beliefs. We believe that children have the paramount right to a relationship with their parents. But the child does not choose the type of lifestyle that their parents choose to live; the child does not get to choose what type of relationship their parents are in. A child finds itself in those circumstances. Children must have that level of equality afforded to them at all levels, and their loving parents in the overwhelming majority of instances, regardless of their sexual preference, must equally be treated with that same level of equality.

I also wish to briefly reflect on families, because so often we get caught up in these debates in talking about the people who are directly affected by the legislation: those who are in a same-sex relationship. But, for all of them, there are many other loving families involved. Senator Pratt reflected that, in some instances, of course, parents may not accept a child who is gay. But, in many instances, parents come to that acceptance and love that child, just as they should and just as much as any other children. Yet, sadly, those parents still find that there is a level of institutionalised discrimination. So families who have come to accept and love their children in a gay relationship equally, as they should, find that the state still entrenches a level of discrimination against those children. This legislation today will right that wrong as well. It will ensure that those parents, those loved ones and those families who have embraced their children for whatever decisions they have made, will not then find that their families are, in some way, shape or form, discriminated against. So this legislation is as much today for the mums and dads and brothers and sisters and other loved ones of people in same-sex relationships as it is for those who are in those relationships.

I know that some have argued that we should have extended this legislation to encompass those in interdependent relationships—that it needs broadening in some way. There are mixed views on that and there are mixed views as to how that can be constructed. I know that there will be those who are disappointed that this legislation has not gone further in addressing those points. I simply make one key point in response to that: that sustaining one form of discrimination—if, indeed, it is that—is no reason to continue other forms of discrimination. Those who believe that we should tackle issues where interdependent families, those in interdependent relationships, may be treated differently and who believe that there is reform to be had there should continue to pursue those reforms. But that is no reason to hold up the reforms that we debate today, because these reforms do stand alone and are a monumental and historic step forward in terms of Australia’s treatment of all people in an equal way.

In closing, can I again reassert, as I did in my earlier contribution, the pride that I have as a Liberal that we stand here on Liberal principles of fair and equal treatment for all before the law, fair and equal treatment of all in terms of their rights and responsibilities, and that this legislation is a marked step forward in delivering, for all Australians in relationships, the type of equality that they deserve.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to begin by congratulating the four speakers who contributed before me today to this debate on the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—General Law Reform) Bill 2008. It is a very great indication of the way Australians want to eliminate discrimination wherever it may raise its head—on this occasion, on the basis of sexuality. It is indeed a major historic change that is being ushered through this chamber today. For as long as there have been laws written in this land, there has been discrimination against people on the basis of their sexuality. In fact, it increased during the 20th century in some aspects and led to a counterproductive effect right across society. Where you do have discrimination, you have harm and hurt—you have people’s lives changed forever and people’s opportunities truncated or taken away from them forever, and that affects everybody who comes in contact with those people.

I have lived long enough as a gay member of the Australian community to have seen enormous changes: from the period when it was a crime, at least for male homosexuals, to have a loving relationship, which was punishable by many years in jail, to this historic day, where discrimination on the basis of sexuality is being removed from the statute books by the parliament. I congratulate all parties who are contributing and who have worked so hard towards this. I want to mention my former colleague, Senator Nettle, and, indeed, former Democrat senator Sid Spindler, who brought comprehensive legislation into this parliament in the mid-nineties, and now here we are, more than a decade later, where the result of that legislation is, finally, about to pass into law.

I note that Senator Obama, President-elect of the United States, expressed his wish that everybody should be treated equally—including gay and straight members of the American community—in the opening paragraph of his speech on victory night. It shows that there is a global move—in a world where, in countries like Iran, people can still be murdered officially for their sexuality—to end this repugnant discrimination which is still so repressive of so many people who share this planet with us. But here, today, we can celebrate this move.

I want, however, to add emphasis to Senator Hanson-Young’s call for a free vote on the amendment the Greens will move to make this completely the end of discrimination—and that means to remove the prohibition on marriage for same-sex couples. This was legislated in 1994; it is time that was removed. And the discrimination will continue until that is removed. What is it that should prohibit people who love each other from being able to demonstrate that love through a wedding ceremony, if they wish to—a marriage ceremony in front of their friends, their loved ones and the community—on an equal basis with every other loving relationship? It is not until that discrimination is removed that we finally will be in a society that can say, ‘We promote, equally, loving relationships, and the rights of children in those loving relationships to feel they are equal in every way with other members of the community.’ There is a job there yet to be done.

I have written to both the leader of the government, the Prime Minister, and the leader of the opposition today, calling for a free vote on the amendment which would remove this discrimination against same-sex couples when it comes to marriage. I hope that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition will allow such a free vote. It is a matter of morality and ethics. Indeed, the whole of this legislation is about that. It is time we moved on to end that form of discrimination in this great country of Australia, which has led the world on so many innovations for the betterment of society in the past and which is taking part in that movement today. Let us not make it 95 per cent; let us make it 100 per cent.

Debate interrupted.